Best Ussr Leader (except Lenin) [Archive]

Red Polak

4th July 2006, 18:12

Originally posted by Mesijs+Jul 4 2006, 03:55 PM--> (Mesijs @ Jul 4 2006, 03:55 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 4 2006, 02:24 PM
....I like Lenin.

alright if it's limited to them ones; I pick Khrushchev.

denounced Stalin, Warsaw Pact, minimum wage, managed economy successfully - he was alright, not great, but better than the others.

no idea how to make it into a poll - perhaps click the "options" button on the left?
I think if we look purely morally, Gorbachev would be my pick. He totally abolished the prison camps, he promoted free speech, he was close with the citizens, he really was a 'good guy'.

But he was also unrealistic, and threw Russia into a big financial crisis, and made and end to all hopes for socialism.

Khrushchev would be a good pick too. It's really wonderful how great he could transform a totally stalinist society. Besides, he freed millions of innocent slave labourers from the gulag, and tried to solve the housing question.

The others are completely out of the question for me. [/b]
I thought he did a good job on solving the housing problem, not just attempted to?

And allowed more freedom of speech in the Eastern bloc than previously (ok, we'll ignore the hungarian suppression for now). Also did some really good things for the Russian economy's growth.

I also probably prefer Gorbachev to the others - I don't think he put an "and to all hopes for socialism" though because I don't think in the USSR there were really much hopes of ever getting there really. All the state apparatus was far too authoritarian and just wrong, we need to start again somewhere else in order to achieve socialism (and eventually communism).

[email protected] 4 2006, 04:05 PM
Dude, like, what's you favorite polka band?
jimmy sturr :P

Dimentio

4th July 2006, 21:43

The most competent of them was probably Andropov. I am not saying that I am supporting him, or any of them at all.

Marukusu

4th July 2006, 21:58

I am not a stalinist, but I'll say Stalin.

He vastly improved the living conditions the "average Ivans".
He greatly industiralized the Soviet Union.
He kicked Hitler's ass, more than any other of the Allies.

(Waiting for hatemail...)

Raubleaux

4th July 2006, 22:12

Ridiculous thread. Stalin is the obvious answer. His leadership helped to industrialize the Soviet Union and save the world from Hitler. He did more to spread socialism throughout the world than any other leader, Lenin included. The living conditions in the USSR skyrocketed under Stalin. There is a reason Russians are building statues of him today.

More Fire for the People

4th July 2006, 22:16

Stalin for the obvious reasons — modernizer and anti-fascist. However, Stalin's faults also are unforgettable too — the show trials, Comintern policy, and his conception of historical materialism. If I knew more about either Andropov or Chernenko I might have chosen them. My favourite fact is that Chernenko mysteriously stashed bundles of money in his vault and desk.

Red Polak

4th July 2006, 22:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:13 PM
Ridiculous thread. Stalin is the obvious answer. His leadership helped to industrialize the Soviet Union and save the world from Hitler. He did more to spread socialism throughout the world than any other leader, Lenin included. The living conditions in the USSR skyrocketed under Stalin. There is a reason Russians are building statues of him today.
yeah he saved the world from Hitler, AFTER he'd allied with him first :angry:

anyone, given an army that size, could have managed the task without resorting to imperialism afterwards.

Marukusu

4th July 2006, 22:41

anyone, given an army that size, could have managed the task without resorting to imperialism afterwards.

Anyone, eh... like Trotsky?

Martin Blank

4th July 2006, 23:27

Sverdlov -- first President of the RSFSR.

Miles

Red Polak

5th July 2006, 00:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:42 PM

anyone, given an army that size, could have managed the task without resorting to imperialism afterwards.

Anyone, eh... like Trotsky?
yeah, Trotsky would have done a fine job imo :trotski:

He supported Poland's independence back in 1919, and probably wouldn't have allied with Hitler and invaded but instead would've just used the Red Army against him immediately.

5th July 2006, 01:03

"best" is a relative thing, and leaders never act in vacuums they are really just the most visible representative of a state that is largely beyond their control, reacting to conditions along institutional rather than personal lines.

I also don't see how its possible to compare a war time leader like Stalin to a political strategist like Khrushchev or Brezhnev to a short term leader like Andropov or Chernenko.

In terms of who i'd most want to have a drink with if they were still alive, i'd pick Khrushchev...but i would trust Brezhnev in office the most.

He supported Poland's independence back in 1919, and probably wouldn't have allied with Hitler and invaded but instead would've just used the Red Army against him immediately.

The Soviet Union never aligned with Hitler they simply signed a non-aggression pact in reaction to the British-Nazi alliance, because they couldn't fight the Nazis in the state they were in without the imperialists.

They also never invaded Poland (except in liberating Nazi occupied Poland), they simply liberated Polish occupied Belosrussia which was taken during the multi-lateral imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union.

Red Polak

5th July 2006, 01:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:04 PM

He supported Poland's independence back in 1919, and probably wouldn't have allied with Hitler and invaded but instead would've just used the Red Army against him immediately.

The Soviet Union never aligned with Hitler they simply signed a non-aggression pact in reaction to the British-Nazi alliance, because they couldn't fight the Nazis in the state they were in without the imperialists.

They also never invaded Poland (except in liberating Nazi occupied Poland), they simply liberated Polish occupied Belosrussia which was taken during the multi-lateral imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union.
non-aggression pact and then a bit of teamwork to divide up Poland.

er....17th september?!

then carved up Poland between Germany and Russia. No "liberation" until later (and even then it was hardly liberation).

Raubleaux

5th July 2006, 01:48

Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak)then carved up Poland between Germany and Russia. No "liberation" until later (and even then it was hardly liberation). [/b]

The Red Army was greeted like they liberators that they were when they entered Poland. They saved Krakow from the destruction of the SS. Without the Red Army, the cultural and historic treasures of Poland would have been burned to the ground, leaving petty Polish nationatlists like yourself with no country at all.

Red Polak
yeah, Trotsky would have done a fine job imo

He supported Poland's independence back in 1919, and probably wouldn't have allied with Hitler and invaded but instead would've just used the Red Army against him immediately.

"Using the Red Army against him immediately" would have been completely suicidal and insane -- you are right that it's something Trotsky might've done though.

Red Polak

5th July 2006, 02:11

Originally posted by Raubleaux+Jul 4 2006, 11:49 PM--> (Raubleaux @ Jul 4 2006, 11:49 PM)The Red Army was greeted like they liberators that they were when they entered Poland. They saved Krakow from the destruction of the SS. Without the Red Army, the cultural and historic treasures of Poland would have been burned to the ground, leaving petty Polish nationatlists like yourself with no country at all.[/b]

I suppose they were still treated like liberators when they started sending Poles off to Siberia too, yeah? :rolleyes:

tell me, have you ever spoken to a Pole from eastern Poland who was there when the Red Army invaded? Believe me, I have many many times, don't give me this "they were treated like liberators" shit.

when all else fails call me a Polish nationalist. ffs. :angry: No, I'm just pissed off that Stalin, who wasn't a communist, invaded, allied with hitler, sent people to gulags/siberia/dead in a pit in Katyn

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:49 PM

Red Polak
yeah, Trotsky would have done a fine job imo

He supported Poland's independence back in 1919, and probably wouldn't have allied with Hitler and invaded but instead would've just used the Red Army against him immediately.

"Using the Red Army against him immediately" would have been completely suicidal and insane -- you are right that it's something Trotsky might've done though.

you know, back in the early 1930's Sikorski went to France asking for help to deal with Hitler, France refused to help, didn't see a problem with Hitler.

You shove the Red Army into Germany then, strike before they started getting really powerful and problem solved.

and don't be so fucking petty re: Trotsky. <_<

Comrade Marcel

5th July 2006, 02:16

Originally posted by Mesijs+Jul 4 2006, 02:55 PM--> (Mesijs @ Jul 4 2006, 02:55 PM)
Red [email protected] 4 2006, 02:24 PM
....I like Lenin.

alright if it's limited to them ones; I pick Khrushchev.

denounced Stalin, Warsaw Pact, minimum wage, managed economy successfully - he was alright, not great, but better than the others.

no idea how to make it into a poll - perhaps click the "options" button on the left?
I think if we look purely morally, Gorbachev would be my pick.
[/b]
That says a lot about the both of you! The two of the three greatest perpeTRAITORS of capitalism in the history of socialism. Way to go!

Comrade Marcel

5th July 2006, 02:18

Why didn't you make this into an actual poll?

And of course, other than Lenin, Stalin was the only good one listed.

JC1

5th July 2006, 03:29

Stalin.

Avtomatov

5th July 2006, 04:30

Stalin.

Xiao Banfa

5th July 2006, 07:26

Krushchev

Mesijs

5th July 2006, 14:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:13 PM
Ridiculous thread. Stalin is the obvious answer. His leadership helped to industrialize the Soviet Union and save the world from Hitler. He did more to spread socialism throughout the world than any other leader, Lenin included. The living conditions in the USSR skyrocketed under Stalin. There is a reason Russians are building statues of him today.
Industrialization isn't something one man does. England also industrialized under aristocracy, the czar also industrialized, etc. It doesn't say anything about Stalin.

Besides, what else could he do than crushing Hitler. And if the Red Army would be prepared, he woulds save some millions of lives in the beginning of the war. Stalin was completely ignorant for a German invasion, and only built up real defenses when Barbarossa was already vastly proceeding.

And please give me your sources about the 'skyrocketing living conditions' under Stalin. From all I read, it seems to me that workers in the new industries had to live and sleep in nothing less than stinking barracks. The one who really was busy with the housing question was Khrushchev.

That says a lot about the both of you! The two of the three greatest perpeTRAITORS of capitalism in the history of socialism. Way to go!

OK, it's very good to have a discussion, but please say WHY you think so. Under Stalin, discussion was completely silenced. People who even doubted Stalins policy and hinted that they did so, where sent off to the NKVD to get some 'interrogation'. I don't get how you can see a completely silent, scared society without any discussion and where having your own opinion was punished rather than promoted, as socialist.

When the coup on Khrushchev was taking place, and Khrushchev was heavily criticized and even compared to Stalin in his rudeness, Khrushchev very well said: "I've done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution."

It seems like the ones who picked Stalin only did this due to industrialization and war. Especially picking him because of war is ridiculous. He did not prepare well, and it's due to the heroic working ethos of the common Soviet man that they won. And then everybody forgets all the massacres ordered by Stalin, even of the best and most devoted communists. This is in big contrast to Khrushchev for example.

And the reason I picked Gorbachev as purely morally the best, is because he closed the prison camps forever, promoted freedom of speech and discussion. Of course, after his reign the USSR fell apart and oligarchs filled their pocket, and that's the bad thing about Gorbachev. That's why I would pick him beacuse of his morals, not about of his pure governing qualities.

5th July 2006, 14:36

That says a lot about the both of you! The two of the three greatest perpeTRAITORS of capitalism in the history of socialism. Way to go!

Krushchev only denounced Stalin he didn't denounce the Soviet state and he did a lot of things that made sense to guard against imperialist aggression.

Marukusu

5th July 2006, 19:12

Industrialization isn't something one man does.

Stalin maybe didn't personally go out to build the new factories, but he had them buildt.

Besides, what else could he do than crushing Hitler.

Surrender like France?

And if the Red Army would be prepared, he woulds save some millions of lives in the beginning of the war.

The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Germany. Remember: this was before Pearl Harbor. If you wanted war, you had to declare it before you attacked. That was the "rules of war" at the time.

Stalin was completely ignorant for a German invasion, and only built up real defenses when Barbarossa was already vastly proceeding.

Oh yeah? Stalin was cold and pragmatic, not stupid. Read a book.

And please give me your sources about the 'skyrocketing living conditions' under Stalin.

Ask someone who was there, who lived in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Or ask many of them. I'm sure most of them would agree that the Soviet Union was a better place to live in under Stalin than Russia is now under Putin (or any other of the former soviet republics under their new leaders.)

From all I read, it seems to me that workers in the new industries had to live and sleep in nothing less than stinking barracks.

...so just because your house is smelly and looks bad, you have a shitty life?
Many people in the former Soviet Union today doesn't even have "stinking barracks" to sleep in.

The one who really was busy with the housing question was Khrushchev.

Ah, good old comrade Nikita! Se below.

Krushchev only denounced Stalin he didn't denounce the Soviet state and he did a lot of things that made sense to guard against imperialist aggression.

I'd say that Khrushchev was an asshole who fucked up the relations with China and caused dissent through the whole Warsaw pact. He also messed up the Aral Sea and blamed the stalinists for a lot of shit he himself had done, just to cover up his own ass.

Red Polak

5th July 2006, 20:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:13 PM

And if the Red Army would be prepared, he woulds save some millions of lives in the beginning of the war.

The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Germany. Remember: this was before Pearl Harbor. If you wanted war, you had to declare it before you attacked. That was the "rules of war" at the time.
You know there's more to WW2 than Pearl Harbour, right?

They had a non-aggression pact because Stalin signed it, he could have refused.

Marukusu

5th July 2006, 21:08

You know there's more to WW2 than Pearl Harbour, right?

Yes.
I refered to the fact that the japanese didn't declare war on the United States until after the actual attack on Pearl Harbor.

They had a non-aggression pact because Stalin signed it, he could have refused.

He could. But he didn't, to the Soviet Union's benefit.

The Red Army was in fact preparing for war after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact. The Finnish Winter War proved that the Red Army was numerous, but not much more. The organization was terrible, the morale was bad and overall the army hadn't changed much since the Russian Civil War.
Frankly, a war with Nazi Germany 1939 would end in a disaster for the Soviet Union. It took years of radical modernization and restructuring for the Red Army to be "fit for fight", and when Operation Barbarossa was launched in 1941 the Soviets had still much left to do, hence the disastrous first months of the war.

Mesijs

5th July 2006, 21:10

Stalin maybe didn't personally go out to build the new factories, but he had them buildt.

Yes, but how can you see this as something that makes Stalin stand out out in comparison with the others? The country had to be industrialized, because it was a backward country. So the factories were built. Anyone would have done that. The important question is: how was it done?

Surrender like France?

Why would he surrender? He had the big majority of the country still in his hands and had enough force to protect it.

What I meant with that question is, that Stalin was the USSR leader during WW2 coincidentally, so he was the one who defeated Hitler. Any leader of the USSR would have done the same, but all you guys do as if Stalin did great because he beat the Germans.

The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Germany. Remember: this was before Pearl Harbor. If you wanted war, you had to declare it before you attacked. That was the "rules of war" at the time.

No, I mean materially prepared. As soon as he signed the pact, as soon as Hitler began waging war on whole Europa, he should have built tanks, artillery, massively training soldiers etc. That was all possible, but he was to stupid to understand that Hitler just wanted to win time to invade the USSR.

Oh yeah? Stalin was cold and pragmatic, not stupid. Read a book.

I know how he was, I've read enough on him.

You're not even trying to withstand my argument. Did he prepare his country for invasion? Did he train soldiers intensively? Did he want to skyrocket material production? Did he build defensive positions? Please, do not evade my question but answer is.

Ask someone who was there, who lived in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Or ask many of them. I'm sure most of them would agree that the Soviet Union was a better place to live in under Stalin than Russia is now under Putin (or any other of the former soviet republics under their new leaders.)

I've read books and seen documentaries about it, and I did get exactly the opposite view. The common worker, all them who built the thousands of new factories, they lived like pigs. Why was the housing questions one of the main problems for Khrushchev? Because Stalin already solved it...?

...so just because your house is smelly and looks bad, you have a shitty life?
Many people in the former Soviet Union today doesn't even have "stinking barracks" to sleep in.

We were talking about how good they were housed, and now you suddenly talk about shitty lifes.

Of course, there are also people who live happy in bad houses, but people in stalinist USSR are certainly not an example of this. It was a society full of fear.

I'd say that Khrushchev was an asshole who fucked up the relations with China and caused dissent through the whole Warsaw pact. He also messed up the Aral Sea and blamed the stalinists for a lot of shit he himself had done, just to cover up his own ass.

Yes, he fucked up relations with China. Not very difficult, when there is an old, bloodthirsty murderer with a great personality cult around him reigning China. Maybe that's the reason Stalin and him where such good friends.

By the way, he himself set up the Warsaw pact. And yes, his foreign policy was one of his weakest points.

And please give some examples he was responsible for and blamed on Stalin.

And by the way, why calling Khrushchev an asshole while Stalin was responsible for some the biggest crimes in humanity. It seems like naming one an asshole is rather subjective then...

Marukusu

5th July 2006, 22:02

Why would he surrender?

You tell me. I'm just saying what he could have done.

He had the big majority of the country still in his hands and had enough force to protect it.

Yupp. Just like Germany in the WWI.

What I meant with that question is, that Stalin was the USSR leader during WW2 coincidentally, so he was the one who defeated Hitler. Any leader of the USSR would have done the same, but all you guys do as if Stalin did great because he beat the Germans.

Of course, giving Stalin all the glory for the Allied victory is wrong. However, Stalin personally played a huge role in the soviet war machine, and hence the whole Allied cause.
...and "all you guys"? I thought I had made myself clear that I was no stalinist, if that was what you meant.

No, I mean materially prepared. As soon as he signed the pact, as soon as Hitler began waging war on whole Europa, he should have built tanks, artillery, massively training soldiers etc.

He did. I think you are underestamiting the german generals sense for tactics and the "blitzkrieg" doctorine.

That was all possible, but he was to stupid to understand that Hitler just wanted to win time to invade the USSR.

...I actually belive that Stalin signed the pact to win time himself. The war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was only a matter of time, Hitler had stated the need of "lebensraum" for his "aryan race" in the east long before he came to power (In Mein Kampf).

I know how he was, I've read enough on him.

Good for you.

You're not even trying to withstand my argument. Did he prepare his country for invasion? Did he train soldiers intensively? Did he want to skyrocket material production? Did he build defensive positions? Please, do not evade my question but answer is.

I'm only a humble, unemployed ex-student. You can't blame me for not having the stamina to sit here all day arguing about a georgian politician that died 50 years ago and why he wasn't a complete psycopath and child-eater.

Yes, massive measures where taken to modernize the Red Army before the invasion. Now are you pleased with that answer?

I've read books and seen documentaries about it, and I did get exactly the opposite view. The common worker, all them who built the thousands of new factories, they lived like pigs.

First of all: ever since the ascend of Khrushchev in the mid-1950's, throwing crap at Stalin and his reign and everything he stood for has been not only supported, but decreed (and now I'm talking about inside the very Soviet Union, not in the west where throwing crap at the the whole Soviet Union began directly during the Russian revolution).
Western documentaries and books therefore, even if they use "soviet sources" tend to be biased to suit the general view of the Soviet Union as a brutal and extremely evil state.

And, as I said earlier, a pigs sty is still four walls and a roof.

Why was the housing questions one of the main problems for Khrushchev? Because Stalin already solved it...?

No, because comrade Nicky wanted to win popular support.
However, isn't it wierd how many houses that blow up in Russia nowadays due to gas leaks? It must be Stalin's fault, he was a complete maniac.
Hail great builder Khrushchev!

We were talking about how good they were housed, and now you suddenly talk about shitty lifes.

I had a strange feeling that you strongly indicated that a bad house meant a bad life. My bad if I was wrong...

Of course, there are also people who live happy in bad houses, but people in stalinist USSR are certainly not an example of this. It was a society full of fear.

No society will ever be free from fear as long as there is any kind of authority. People fear the state even in the most democratic countries.

Yes, he fucked up relations with China.

Yes he certainly did.

Not very difficult, when there is an old, bloodthirsty murderer with a great personality cult around him reigning China.

Yeah, stupid Mao, adored by the people. I agree that all this personality cult-thing sucks, but Mao actually did good changes in China. Or you maybe liked China better under the Qing dynasty? Or under the warlords? Or under the japanese, who notoriously raped and tortured native chinese "just for fun"?
And seriously, the thoughts behind the cultural revolution in China was great. Destroy the old society in order to build the new, and attack the party headquarters to eliminate the traitors there.
To bad the cultural revolution fucked up. They should have shot Deng Xiaoping.
Honestly, is generally China today better than it was during Mao? Is Russia today better than it was under Stalin?

By the way, he himself set up the Warsaw pact.

I know. And he caused a lot of dissent in it.

And yes, his foreign policy was one of his weakest points.

No shit?

And please give some examples he was responsible for and blamed on Stalin.

He messed up Ukraine pretty much when he was in charge there. Executing a whole lot of people I belive, though I don't have any numbers at the moment.

rouchambeau

5th July 2006, 23:48

Dee's nutz.

left-nut

6th July 2006, 22:07

Josef Stalin.

Ol' Dirty

7th July 2006, 00:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:05 AM
Dude, like, what's you favorite polka band?
Anything that's funky.

DO THE POLKA!

:D

Wanted Man

8th July 2006, 05:45

Wow. If RedPolak led the USSR at the time, we would all be learning to speak German right now.

Dean

10th July 2006, 00:34

Are you people communists or fascists?

Stalin was hardly different than Hitler. They both murdered many people, had forced labor camps, and raised the standard of living for the people that they didnt imprison. Nevermind the free speech degredation.

Lenin would be my choice for his economic and moral background, but I think Gorbachev is the only other leader that I like at all - and since I can't choose Lenin, it's Gorbachev.

Marukusu

10th July 2006, 01:31

Are you people communists or fascists?

Guess twice.

Stalin was hardly different than Hitler.

Right...

They both murdered many people, had forced labor camps, and raised the standard of living for the people that they didnt imprison.

Stalin didn't proclaim that the georgian race was superior to all other races in the world and he didn't try to exterminate any other "race".
Stalin didn't start the world war.

Note that I've never said that Stalin was a God. He may have done questionable things, but he was by far the most progressive leader in the history of the Soviet Union.

Nevermind the free speech degredation.

Free speech sucks. I hate racism, homophobia, nationalism etc. and I don't want to read/view/hear about that sort of propaganda.
Cut out the tongues of the foes before you shoot them, comrades. That's what they deserve.

Lenin would be my choice for his economic and moral background, but I think Gorbachev is the only other leader that I like at all - and since I can't choose Lenin, it's Gorbachev.

Way to go, comrade!
Long live market economy! Long live corruption!

Honggweilo

10th July 2006, 03:45

Stalin , 2nd choice Andropov (based on his background and ideas)

Lenin would be my choice for his economic and moral background, but I think Gorbachev is the only other leader that I like at all - and since I can't choose Lenin, it's Gorbachev.

Yes gorbachev, the true leninist...

note that he once said; "I wanted the Soviet Union to turn over to a form of social-democracy" and coïncidently was on vacation during the jeltsin coup....

Wanted Man

10th July 2006, 13:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:35 PM
Are you people communists or fascists?

Stalin was hardly different than Hitler. They both murdered many people, had forced labor camps, and raised the standard of living for the people that they didnt imprison. Nevermind the free speech degredation.

Lenin would be my choice for his economic and moral background, but I think Gorbachev is the only other leader that I like at all - and since I can't choose Lenin, it's Gorbachev.
Because free speech flourished under Lenin. :rolleyes: Of course it didn't, and I don't mind that at all.

Martin Blank

10th July 2006, 14:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 05:30 AM
Because free speech flourished under Lenin. :rolleyes: Of course it didn't, and I don't mind that at all.
"You say that I want freedom of the press for the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, I want freedom of the press for myself, a proletarian, a member of the party for fifteen years.... Surely I have earned a little freedom of the press, within the party at least. Or is it that I must take my leave as soon as I disagree with you in the evaluation of social forces?... You say that the jaws of the bourgeoisie must be cracked. The trouble is that, while you raise your hand against the capitalist, you deal a blow to the worker. You know very well that for such words as I am now uttering hundreds, perhaps thousands, of workers are languishing in prison. That I myself remain at liberty is only because I am a veteran Communist, have suffered for my beliefs, and am known among the mass of workers. Were it not for this, were I just an ordinary mechanic from the same factory, where would I be now? In a Cheka prison or, more likely, made to 'escape,' just as I made Mikhail Romanov 'escape.' Once more I say: You raise your hand against the bourgeoisie, but it is I who am spitting blood, and it is we, the workers, whose jaws are being cracked." (Gavril Myasnikov, letter to V.I. Lenin, August 8, 1921, reprinted in Treyozhnye Voprosy [Alarming Questions], Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party)

Miles

Rollo

10th July 2006, 14:50

Khrushchev simply because he was in that family guy episode.

Kid_A7

10th July 2006, 17:02

The problem with choosing your'e #1 Soviet leader in the post-Lenin era, which is, of course, the greater part of the 20th century, is that, well, they all kinda suck.
I know, I know, Stalin defeated Hitler, Gorbachev was a lovely person, and Brezhnev had extremely large eye-brows. But none of these fellas showed anything near true Marxism. The NEP by Lenin didn't quite do that either, but at least he was relatively trying to implemet.
Stalin was just plain using his ideology for Imperialist needs, Krushchev did everything but change stuff for the better, and Gorbachev.. well, he single handedly fucked everything up with his enthusiasm to meet, chit-chat and relax at tea-time with dear-ol movie star reagan and his lovely mistress of UK - Thatcher.

Had any of these guys been truly a Marxist rather than, say, a self-centred-power-thirsty-asshole.. Well, maybe a bit less people would fear and loath Communism as much.

Rollo

11th July 2006, 05:04

I was kidding :P was actually referring to the episode of family guy with the skit of the show " the communists "

Cult of Reason

11th July 2006, 06:20

Stalin: Bastard, but an effective bastard.

Shadowlegion

11th July 2006, 11:43

Stalin was probably the most efficient and effective, but I hardly think it was worth it. Fascism is fascism, it doesnt matter if you have the best intentions. The USSR was a total clusterfuck in a lot of respects, and I think the rest of the leaders listed probably contributed slightly more to the trainwreck than stalin did. After all, it's kinda hard to do a bad job in the eyes of anyone when anyone who thinks so is automatically killed.

Mesijs

15th July 2006, 00:25

Guess twice.

Right...

Stalin didn't proclaim that the georgian race was superior to all other races in the world and he didn't try to exterminate any other "race".
Stalin didn't start the world war.

Stalin did call poor people who didn't want to collectivize 'opressive landowners, khulaks', he did call true communists that didn't like stalinist policies 'enemies of the people', he pretty much called most of the members of the Communist Party 'enemies of the people' and wiped them out.

What I think is really dumb of people who deny smiliarities with Hitler, is that they say: "Hey, Stalin wasn't a racist murderer". No, he wasn't, he didn't kill people from one race, but people who didn't agree with him, family and friends of these people, and people who didn't want to undergo his policies, and their families. Does it matter whether the killed person is an innocent jew or an innocent random person? I don't think so.

Note that I've never said that Stalin was a God. He may have done questionable things, but he was by far the most progressive leader in the history of the Soviet Union.

Free speech sucks. I hate racism, homophobia, nationalism etc. and I don't want to read/view/hear about that sort of propaganda.
Cut out the tongues of the foes before you shoot them, comrades. That's what they deserve.

That isn't anything the anti-stalinists mean. Please stop giving answers denying the real questions. I mean that when you would say "Fuck Stalin, he betrayed the revolution" or "I think Stalinist methods aren't for the good of the people, but for the bad of them", that you got shot dead or sent to a force labour camp. THAT is the killing of free speech.

By the way, funny that you hate all of these.
Racism: One of Stalin's quotes was: "They should give the workers clubs to beat the shit out of the jews."
Homophobia: Homosexualism did gain a platform only when the communist party didn't rule anymore in the 1990s
Nationalism: The Soviet Union during WW2 was the most nationalist country in the world.

Way to go, comrade!
Long live market economy! Long live corruption!

By the way, I thought the idea of revolution is that the people would maintain power, and to educate them to critize the government and to build a new society by the collective people's force. Isn't this the exact opposite of what Stalin did?

Damn, I just don't get it. Stalin crushed democracy in every single way: freedom of speech, freedom of press, free elections etc. Please, could any stalinist argue that he didn't do any of these (the true aims of a communist revolution), I'm all ears.

Marukusu

15th July 2006, 13:39

Stalin did call poor people who didn't want to collectivize 'opressive landowners, khulaks', he did call true communists that didn't like stalinist policies 'enemies of the people', he pretty much called most of the members of the Communist Party 'enemies of the people' and wiped them out.

...And so did glorious comrade Lenin.

What I think is really dumb of people who deny smiliarities with Hitler, is that they say: "Hey, Stalin wasn't a racist murderer". No, he wasn't, he didn't kill people from one race, but people who didn't agree with him, family and friends of these people, and people who didn't want to undergo his policies, and their families. Does it matter whether the killed person is an innocent jew or an innocent random person? I don't think so.

Oh my fucking God, you are ignorant!
I've never seen any proof of death camps in the Soviet Union. Concentration camps maybe, but not death camps, which is a hell of a difference.

That isn't anything the anti-stalinists mean.

Oh, pulling everyone over one egde now, are we?

Please stop giving answers denying the real questions.

...Then why ask questions if you know that I will "deny the real questions"?

By the way, funny that you hate all of these.

You have a sick and depraved sense of humor, comrade.

Racism: One of Stalin's quotes was: "They should give the workers clubs to beat the shit out of the jews."

Oh, and I bet you never have said anything rasistic in all of you life. Quotes prove nothing.

Nationalism: The Soviet Union during WW2 was the most nationalist country in the world.

How do you mesure that? Is devotation to a worker's society nationalism?
The Soviet Union wasn't a country, it was a Union of Soviets.

By the way, I thought the idea of revolution is that the people would maintain power, and to educate them to critize the government and to build a new society by the collective people's force.

You mean just like during the "horrible" chinese Cultural Revolution?

Isn't this the exact opposite of what Stalin did?

No.

Damn, I just don't get it. Stalin crushed democracy in every single way: freedom of speech, freedom of press, free elections etc.

Fuck! The man was a monster!
Then what is democracy? Just because you don't have free press and free elections doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have a democratic society - "democracy" means people's rule, and if the people want's a dictator then it is still a democracy.

...and with those words I respectfully withdraw from this pointless discussion.

See you on the barricades, comrades.

Vargha Poralli

28th August 2006, 23:02

Stalin.Though he assasinated people, bureaucratized Soviet Union and betrayed revolution , he did drive modernization of USSR and made it capable of facing the mighty german war machine. On being careless in the starting of operation barbarossa no one thought that hitler is such an astonishing stupid to start it at that time while he did not manage to defeat britsh.it was a mistake that evry one made by thinking that hitler was a military genius including himself while he is not.

Kruschev for murdering the feared nkvd chief beria masterminder of all executions and assasinations during purges.

Though excluded i think no one can rate Lenin along with others bcos he is the leader of USSR when it is in great turmoil when every imperialist assholes wanted to strangle it in its infancy . so all the harsh measures he had taken shud be justfied else the soviet state wud have bcum another paris commune and we cud never talk or even think about revolution now.

Labor Shall Rule

29th August 2006, 00:32

Trotsky would of been nice.

PaulMarsh

29th August 2006, 01:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:09 PM
What leader of the USSR consider you best (or less worse) except Lenin (because a lot of people would pick him.

2) Khrushchev

By a country mile - Kruschev.

His working class background is important, but most of all I admire him for the fact that he was there (sometimes on the wrong side, sometimes on the right side) in most of the important events in the world from 1917 until the early 60s.

To be sent to Stalingrad to "save the city at all costs" and to deliver on that - how much different would world history be if that had not happened? I know we Brits like to think we would have fought the Nazis to the last man, but really Stalingrad changed the course of the War more than anything else.

Finally "Kruschev Remembers" is essential reading.

Paininyoura55

29th August 2006, 01:58

Gorbachev, because he ended it.

Free Left

29th August 2006, 02:49

To be sent to Stalingrad to "save the city at all costs" and to deliver on that - how much different would world history be if that had not happened? I know we Brits like to think we would have fought the Nazis to the last man, but really Stalingrad changed the course of the War more than anything else.

That's bullshit. The Soviets were going to win the war anyway, they had more tanks then all the continental powers combined.
And in Stalingrad the Germans were fucked anyway, they had no proper supplies, ammo or equipment and where isolated.
The monent that changed the war was Japan raiding Pearl Harbour or Operation Barborossa being given the all-clear.
If Hitler had perhaps attacked the Middle East... That might have changed History.

Anyway, Gorbachev was the best leader.

ComradeBen

29th August 2006, 04:42

I would have to go with Kruschev. He was a great man and did great good for the USSR in general.

Tekun

30th August 2006, 05:38

Andropov: great ideas including his fight against corruption and his ideas to strengthen the economy

(His only miss was the whole issue around Hungary)

Tommy-K

30th August 2006, 11:54

Well, I don't really think there were any 'good' USSR leaders after Lenin. Especially not Stalin. Are we forgetting Lenin never wanted Stalin to succeed him? Stalin took power by force. Hmm, very fair <_<

If I had to pick I would be stuck between Kruschev and Gorbachev.

Red Rebel

31st August 2006, 23:26

Andropov- his anti-corruption drive and reform would have set the USSR back on track.

Espically not Stalin (take guess why) and not Gorbachev (his policies mess up the Russian Federation just look how screwed up it is now). Brezhnev was like a mini-Stalin and under his rule economic stagnation ruined the union and awarded himself medals on his birthday.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st September 2006, 00:09

While Stalin single handedly created a horrible reputation for communism, he did industrialize the country in 5 years. I'd say that Lenin was the only good leader of the USSR. It would have been interesting to see what things would be like had he lived longer.

Nusocialist

1st September 2006, 01:49

I can't believe people would say Stalin, he was a monster,he killed millions of people.
I'm not a fan of any of their leaders,even Lenin.

stevensen

1st September 2006, 12:28

stalin rulez ok?

Honggweilo

1st September 2006, 13:20

yes 0mgfg Rolfmaozed0ng [email protected] ttly r0xorz m3 box0rs rul3333s omfg pwnd [email protected]'s [email protected] l2 R3voluci0n mofo n00bs! lol!!!111one111elven111one :lol:

Ceeker

1st September 2006, 16:30

I find it somewhat ironic that people identifying themselves as "revolutionary leftists" pick Stalin on the basis of his "industrialisation". Well whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Industrialisation happens under capitalism too, that doesn't make it a good thing in itself. The revolution isn't about building factories and coal mines. Dare I say that people who would hold otherwise are bourgeois? ;)

In addition, to credit Stalin with enabling the Soviet Union to beat back the Nazi advance is a ridiculous joke. If anything, it's amazing that they actually managed to win the war considering the vast ineptitude initially displayed by the Red Army - all as a result of the Stalinist bureaucracy. The Red Army was left without much effective leadership as a result of the purges in the 30's (nearly all of the high ranking generals lost their posts). The ineptitude was already evident in the Finnish Winter War; the technologically superior Soviet troops could not even defeat an army they outnumbered at least four to one without suffering immense casualties (eventually they had to settle on minor gains). The lack of leadership was combined with a political domination over the army - junior officers could not command their troops effectively without fear of contradicting the wishes of those in charge and facing an NKVD style court martial. For example, when Operation Barbarossa began, Stalin flatly refused to believe that Hitler had invaded, and orders were issued to the frontline troops not to return fire. Several million encircled, dead and captured Soviet soldiers later, Stalin had the apparent grace to change his mind.

Stalin was a fool and does not deserve any credit whatsoever. I'm not exactly much of a fan of standing armies, but it's rather simple to see that he fucked up majorly in this regard.

EDIT - Oh, and I have to give my vote to Gorbachev. At least he had the common sense to realise some of the things that were wrong with the USSR. It's not his fault it was already too broken to fix and that his hands were tied by the conservative establishment.

Originally posted by Tragic Clown

They also never invaded Poland (except in liberating Nazi occupied Poland), they simply liberated Polish occupied Belosrussia which was taken during the multi-lateral imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union.

Of course, we'll just ignore that Byelorussia was an imperial tsarist acquisition too, won't we?

Honggweilo

1st September 2006, 17:20

nearly all of the high ranking generals lost their posts

and you would ignore the fact that alot of those high ranking officers where tsarist remnants, won't you?

Ceeker

1st September 2006, 17:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:21 PM

nearly all of the high ranking generals lost their posts

and you would ignore the fact that alot of those high ranking officers where tsarist remnants, won't you?
Define "Tsarist remnants". It's to be expected that many of the higher ranking officers in the 30s served in the imperial army, considering their age, and the fact that experienced leaders don't grow from trees after less than two decades. Even Zukhov served in the imperial army, yet he survived the purges. The others were hardly significant officers at the time of the old regime; Tukhachevksy is probably the most prominent one I can think of, and he was only a lieutenant, with only a couple of years serving in the Tsar's army before the revolution. (and fought in the civil war against the whites anyway, so I think you're clutching at straws, here.)

Wanted Man

1st September 2006, 19:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:10 PM
While Stalin single handedly created a horrible reputation for communism
Because the bourgeoisie never slandered communism until Stalin came and ruined it all.

JimFar

1st September 2006, 20:07

PaulMarsh wrote:

To be sent to Stalingrad to "save the city at all costs" and to deliver on that - how much different would world history be if that had not happened? I know we Brits like to think we would have fought the Nazis to the last man, but really Stalingrad changed the course of the War more than anything else.

I think that is a sound assessment of what Khrushchev, along with General Chuikov
(who held the line at the Volga) and Marshall Zhukov were able to accomplish there. I would dare that Nikita holds the distinction of having helped twice to save the world. The first time by working to ensure a Soviet victory at Stalingrad, thereby turning the tide of the Second World in the Allies' favor. The second time that Khrushchev helped to save the world was in October 1962 in the Cuban Missile Crisis when he had the maturity to "blink first" thereby preventing that crisis from escalating to a fullscale nuclear war. He did that with the foreknowledge that he would pay a heavy political price for that (which he did when he lost his post as General Secretary in 1964).

pastradamus

1st September 2006, 22:05

Every one of them Traitiors of the Prolitarien. Lenin was the only one worth mentioning.

Mesijs

1st September 2006, 23:28

Originally posted by Ceeker+Sep 1 2006, 01:31 PM--> (Ceeker @ Sep 1 2006, 01:31 PM) I find it somewhat ironic that people identifying themselves as "revolutionary leftists" pick Stalin on the basis of his "industrialisation". Well whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Industrialisation happens under capitalism too, that doesn't make it a good thing in itself. The revolution isn't about building factories and coal mines. Dare I say that people who would hold otherwise are bourgeois? ;)

In addition, to credit Stalin with enabling the Soviet Union to beat back the Nazi advance is a ridiculous joke. If anything, it's amazing that they actually managed to win the war considering the vast ineptitude initially displayed by the Red Army - all as a result of the Stalinist bureaucracy. The Red Army was left without much effective leadership as a result of the purges in the 30's (nearly all of the high ranking generals lost their posts). The ineptitude was already evident in the Finnish Winter War; the technologically superior Soviet troops could not even defeat an army they outnumbered at least four to one without suffering immense casualties (eventually they had to settle on minor gains). The lack of leadership was combined with a political domination over the army - junior officers could not command their troops effectively without fear of contradicting the wishes of those in charge and facing an NKVD style court martial. For example, when Operation Barbarossa began, Stalin flatly refused to believe that Hitler had invaded, and orders were issued to the frontline troops not to return fire. Several million encircled, dead and captured Soviet soldiers later, Stalin had the apparent grace to change his mind.

Stalin was a fool and does not deserve any credit whatsoever. I'm not exactly much of a fan of standing armies, but it's rather simple to see that he fucked up majorly in this regard.

EDIT - Oh, and I have to give my vote to Gorbachev. At least he had the common sense to realise some of the things that were wrong with the USSR. It's not his fault it was already too broken to fix and that his hands were tied by the conservative establishment.

Tragic Clown

They also never invaded Poland (except in liberating Nazi occupied Poland), they simply liberated Polish occupied Belosrussia which was taken during the multi-lateral imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union.

Of course, we'll just ignore that Byelorussia was an imperial tsarist acquisition too, won't we? [/b]
A great post. Couldn't have said it better.

Because the bourgeoisie never slandered communism until Stalin came and ruined it all.

What do you mean to say with this...?